Gobinda Chandra Chatterjee, J. - (1.) This revisional application is against the proceeding styled as Case No. C 375 of 1982 pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 24-Parganas, where in processes were issued against the accused-petitioners under section 28 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
(2.) Grievance of the complainant - opposite party, the Labour Enforcement Officer, Government of India, was that the accused persons did not care to follow various Rules, viz., rule 81, rule 76, rule 51, rule 42, and rule 78(b) of the Act. His grievance was that they did not care to set up proper canteens or proper latrines as envisaged within rule 42 and rule 51 respectively of the said Act. On receipt of the complaint filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue processes against the accused-petitioners under Section 28 of the Act. Being aggrieved thereby the accused-petitioners have come up in revision.
(3.) Mr. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the accused-petitioners, draws my attention to section 28 of the Act which states inter alia that the appropriate Government may, by notification, appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be inspectors for the purposes of the Act and so on and so forth, Mr. Dutt contends that the section is not at all a penal one. He draws my attention to sections 24 and 25 of the Act from which it appears crystal clear that the penal offences under the Act are adumbrated in sections 24 and 25 and not at all in section 28. Grievance made before me by Mr. Dutta is that the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case nor to the complaint which was filed by Mr. Mukherjee and that, therefore, the processes were ordered to be issued under section 28 of the Act instead of sections 24 and 25 of the said Act.;